The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside a Family Court order and allowed a man to be appointed as the legal guardian of a minor girl, emphasizing that the child’s welfare must remain the foremost consideration.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from an order passed by the Family Court, Madurai, which had dismissed a petition seeking guardianship of a minor girl. The appellant, S. Balaji, had approached the court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, requesting to be appointed as the legal guardian of a child named H. Sabana Banu, also known as Shri Daanvika.
According to the case records, the appellant and his wife, who had no children, were known to the child’s biological mother for over a decade. The respondent, a daily wage worker and a widow, had three children and faced financial hardship. She voluntarily gave her third child, born in December 2023, to the appellant and his wife, who had since been raising the child.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Seeks Clear Policy on Organ Transplant Expansion, Questions State’s Phased Plan
The biological mother had supported the guardianship plea and expressed her consent before the court.
The Family Court acknowledged that there was no strict legal prohibition on appointing a non-Muslim as guardian of a Muslim child. However, it declined the request primarily because the child was a female and the prospective guardians were not related by blood.
This led the appellant to challenge the decision before the High Court.
When the matter came up for hearing, the High Court directed the presence of the biological mother to confirm her position. During the hearing, the mother reiterated her consent and explained her inability to provide basic care to all her children.
The judges also interacted with the child and family members present in court. It was observed that the minor had been living with the appellant and his wife since birth and identified them as her parents. The biological mother was reportedly referred to as “aunty” by the child.
The bench carefully examined the legal framework under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. It noted that any person desirous of being appointed as a guardian can apply under the Act, and the court must primarily consider the welfare of the child.
“The primary factor to be considered by the Court is the welfare of the child,” the bench observed, adding that other aspects such as age, religion, and the capacity of the guardian are secondary but relevant considerations.
The court also referred to earlier judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, which recognised adoption and child care rights irrespective of religion. It acknowledged that while traditional Islamic law may not recognise adoption in the same way as other systems, concepts like “Kafala” allow for the care and upbringing of a child by another family.
Importantly, the bench clarified that the Guardians and Wards Act is religion-neutral and applies equally to all individuals seeking guardianship.
After assessing the facts and legal principles, the High Court concluded that the child’s best interests would be served by continuing her upbringing with the appellant and his wife.
“The Court is satisfied that the appellant and his wife are genuinely bringing up the child as their own,” the bench noted.
Setting aside the Family Court’s earlier order, the High Court allowed the appeal and appointed the appellant as the legal guardian of the minor child.
Case Details
Case Title: S. Balaji vs. M.A. Mahaboobani
Case Number: C.M.A(MD) No. 423 of 2026
Judges: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Decision Date: 28 April 2026
